BAE's 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannon

bobbymike

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 April 2009
Messages
13,138
Reaction score
5,950
http://www.special-ops.org/16812/new-radical-side-loading-tank-cannon-will-be-delivered-to-british-army.html

BAE-Systems-40mm-Cased-Telescoped-Cannon.jpg
 
This is well worth a read if you are interested in the CTAS http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/cased-telescoped-armament-system/
Those 40mm rounds are expensive from the sound of it ::)
 
cador said:
With NEXTER ? B)
Click to expand...

The French always planned on building the NEXTER as the VBCI version for carrying infantry and a 25mm gun and the VAD version for fire support with the 40mm CTA (originally 45mm CTA). In the Australian Army this class of vehicle is being called the "ground based attack helicopter". Imagine the VBCI as the Black Hawk and the VAD as the Apache and you get a good idea of the difference.
 
I think what cador means is that CTA International is a 50/50 Joint Venture between BAE and Nexter.
 
JFC Fuller said:
I think what cador means is that CTA International is a 50/50 Joint Venture between BAE and Nexter.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Maybe they (the Brits and the French) should reference how they just brought all the technology from America? Port Clinton, Ohio to be exact.
 
Abraham, are you saying that BAE/Nexter bought the rights to Ares' CTA or COMVAT cannon ... or that they were just 'inspired' by that gun or its ammunition?
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Fair enough. Maybe they (the Brits and the French) should reference how they just brought all the technology from America? Port Clinton, Ohio to be exact.
Click to expand...

Because that wouldn't be a fair representation of the truth. True, ARES had been working on larger calibre (75mm) CTA guns from 1973 but they never managed to produce a weapon suitable for the US Army. GIAT began working on medium calibre systems in the 1980s, much of the work done independently and later supported by Royal Ordnance. They certainly received knowledge support and technology from ARES but to say "they just brought all the technology from America" is a gross miss-representation of the truth.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Fair enough. Maybe they (the Brits and the French) should reference how they just brought all the technology from America? Port Clinton, Ohio to be exact.
Click to expand...

Because that wouldn't be a fair representation of the truth. True, ARES had been working on larger calibre (75mm) CTA guns from 1973 but they never managed to produce a weapon suitable for the US Army. GIAT began working on medium calibre systems in the 1980s, much of the work done independently and later supported by Royal Ordnance. They certainly received knowledge support and technology from ARES but to say "they just brought all the technology from America" is a gross miss-representation of the truth.
Click to expand...

"Cased Telescoped Ammunition and Gun Technology. Air Force laboratory personnel conceived the cased telescoped ammunition concept in 1954. The cased telescoped concept places the ammunition projectile completely within the cartridge, instead of protruding from the top of the cartridge as in conventional ammunition. Further, the cased telescoped ammunition cartridge is formed into a right-circular cylinder, instead of a tapered cylinder as in conventional ammunition. Detailed schematics of this concept and conventional ammunition are in Enclosure 1. Enclosure 1 also discusses the issues involved in the development of cased telescoped ammunition and gun technology.

The cased telescoped ammunition concept has been improved and refined during the intervening 41 years through the research and development efforts of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Estimated funds expended on various cased telescoped ammunition and gun technology research and development programs from FYs 1954 through 1995 are $213.2 million. A detailed funding chart is in Enclosure 2."

http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy96/96-164.pdf

The technology was even planned for the original gun for the F-15 though in that instance they probably tried a step too far. They were attempting caseless telescoped ammunition with the GAU-7.
 
Ares also did the COMVAT 45mm CTA gun, and that produced a lot of input to GIAT's own CTA design, which was also in 45mm at one point (they may have been aiming for interoperable ammunition, IIRC). That said, GIAT/NEXTER and RO have done a lot of work to go from an experimental system to one suitable for operational deployment.
 
GIAT in particular did a lot of conceptual work themselves, particularly around the use of plastic for the cases. And to say there has been considerable development work in the last 25 years would be a significant understatement.

There was absolutely a desire for interoperable ammunition, in fact GIAT and Alliant actually undertook a series of joint trials with the intention of achieving interoperability for a new STANAG.
 
GIAT and RO may have done a lot of work on CTA but every key element of the 40mm CTA gun is ARES tech. The configuration of the ammunition and the gun is all American. Rotating breeches, push out case ejection, propellant combustion after projectile clearance of the chamber, CTA sealing cap and so on. Without ARES there is just a barrel and a shell.
 
And without GIAT and RO you have some interesting concepts sat in museum store rooms and the archives of technical journals but nothing operationally viable.
 
frenchs has tried gyrojet , finjet , and their version of the oicw .

since 1973 , ares has developed plastic tca with its 75mm gun who was operationally viable for a light tank.Near 10000 rounds of 75mm had been fired . this technology is become mature with ares .
 
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation Report June 14th 1996:

However, the DoD expenditure of $213 million over 41 years has not resulted in a viable weapons system because several major problems have not been resolved
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy96/96-164.pdf
 
JFC Fuller said:
And without GIAT and RO you have some interesting concepts sat in museum store rooms and the archives of technical journals but nothing operationally viable.
Click to expand...

The only thing GIAT and RO brought the table to make CTA "viable" was a paying customer.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation Report June 14th 1996:

However, the DoD expenditure of $213 million over 41 years has not resulted in a viable weapons system because several major problems have not been resolved
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/fy96/96-164.pdf
Click to expand...

LOL. So because CTA ammo development wasnt able to field a round able to fire at 5000 fps at same or lower cost than conventional ammo shooting at 3-4000 fps it was a program failure? Because that is what that report says. Nothing in there about CTA not being fieldable or operationally viable by any rational sense of the term. Just that it did not deliver on the initial optimism of much higher velocity and some unfounded mumbo jumbo out higher cost per round.

Back in the real world the US CTA programs lead by ARES in the 1980s producer fieldable weapons with enhanced performance over rivals in those calibres funded for further development ( 5mm, 12.7mm and 75mm). They didn't get an order because each of the programs they were aimed for were cost cutted out of exsistence. ACR, V-22 weapon system and RDF/LT. Until the French and British armies came aong looking for a new mdm cal gun (40mm) and high operational demand from the sandpit mandated at least a major study be funded into lowering LMG weight (LSAT).
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The only thing GIAT and RO brought the table to make CTA "viable" was a paying customer.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. GIAT had done significant work on CTA technology itself through the 1980s and into the early 1990s, that fed into the post 1994 CTA International work. CTA International then self-funded further development all the way through to the 2000s. The ARES work provided useful foundation knowledge but not a viable weapons system, the CTA International work subsequently has produced a viable weapon (if you don't mind very expensive ammunition).

If you read the report it lays out a whole range of specific issues that were unresolved around 1994, for instance the successful use of plastics for the cartridge cases which was an area GIAT contributed to.
 
All the issues you refer to are not CTA specific but come from trging to shoot ultra high velocity rounds via a conventional type propellant, projectile, bore. As to using plastics in the case this is hardly crucial tech. Just a nice possibility thanks to the ARES breech design.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
All the issues you refer to are not CTA specific but come from trging to shoot ultra high velocity rounds via a conventional type propellant, projectile, bore. As to using plastics in the case this is hardly crucial tech. Just a nice possibility thanks to the ARES breech design.
Click to expand...

Crucial to making the concept viable rather than a low TRL project which is what CTA International has been able to do.

And some of those issues were unique to CTA systems, such as achieving proper alignment between the projectile and the forcing cone.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Fair enough. Maybe they (the Brits and the French) should reference how they just brought all the technology from America? Port Clinton, Ohio to be exact.
Click to expand...

Because that wouldn't be a fair representation of the truth. True, ARES had been working on larger calibre (75mm) CTA guns from 1973 but they never managed to produce a weapon suitable for the US Army. GIAT began working on medium calibre systems in the 1980s, much of the work done independently and later supported by Royal Ordnance. They certainly received knowledge support and technology from ARES but to say "they just brought all the technology from America" is a gross miss-representation of the truth.
Click to expand...
Ok was low on the Crusader thread about CTA proposals limited at 60mm. Thought ARES had looked at 75mm HV CTA but wasn't sure so . Sounds like you know more what TRL ARES actually reached. Their website says 90mm CTA. Any additional TRL info would be appreciated
 
With respect to those who made the video, that was a bit of a damp squib. What effect on the target? Any?
 
It's not a weapon effect test, it's a safe function test at this point, looking at the effects of recoil and blast on the vehicle itself. I'd bet the actual round fired was inert.
 
The clue would be in the title. live firing by definition cannot be a reference to an inert evolution. All live firing of UK vehicles involves a live round and a target. Anything else would be called a practise session. For instance, the "shush prac" we fired from Chieftain was a practise HESH round but it still involved a live charge. On top of that the military never shoot at "nothing", it would take away ALL the fun.
 
This is pre-delivery testing done by the contractor, not the British Army. Per the General Dynamics Press release:

This early live firing involved testing the main 40mm CTA International stabilised cannon and chain gun whilst the vehicle was static. This is the first time that the weapon system has been fired while fitted to the AJAX platform. The early testing supports the de-risking of the formal firing programme, which will take place later this year.

AJAX was fitted with instrumentation to record all aspects of the firing, from recoil and blast stresses to fall of shot. The testing was conducted by General Dynamics Land Systems-UK and turret developer, Lockheed Martin UK, with the Ministry of Defence observing.
Click to expand...

Note that the emphasis is on the effect of the firing on the vehicle and on fall of shot, but not on terminal effects because it's a test of the vehicle and weapon interaction, not the gun and ammunition, which have been extensively tested elsewhere. I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the rounds fired were TP. Still live in the sense thata priojectile was fired downrange, butt why use HE and add another range safety issue that isn't needed for the purposes of the test?
 
Firing AP would be a reasonable test too in fact firing multiple types of ammunition would be required because they will require different charges in the shell. If you are firing on a range there will be targets so why lose the benefit of range time?
 
Mike1158 said:
Firing AP would be a reasonable test too in fact firing multiple types of ammunition would be required because they will require different charges in the shell. If you are firing on a range there will be targets so why lose the benefit of range time?
Click to expand...

And when they get to the full firing trials (in a couple of months), they will no doubt fire all types of ammunition. But right now, these are the very first rounds fired from this gun, in this turret, mounted on this vehicle. All they are concerned with is that the rounds get downrange, hit more or less what they are aimed at, and don't damage the vehicle in the process. That's what the test was about, and that's what the video shows.
 
Mike1158 said:
Firing AP would be a reasonable test too in fact firing multiple types of ammunition would be required because they will require different charges in the shell. If you are firing on a range there will be targets so why lose the benefit of range time?
Click to expand...

You dont want to fire a live round in your first test fire because of enhanced risk and cost. AP rounds are not cheap when all you want to test is the safe and functional operation of the gun mounting.
 
Seems like this gun is being used in Japan as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsum_mJhM9Y
 
It's apparently not the same gun. Japan has independently developed its own experimental 40mm case-telescoped gun.

I can't read Japanese, but this presentation compares the Japanese gun to the CTWS developed by CTA:

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/seisaku/results/20/jigo/sankou/09.pdf
 
I think you are right. The gun actually sounds a little like the Oerlikon 35mm revolver canon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdqs4rmPkl4
 
Just a quick point about first firing, weapon tests, they are not conducted from a vehicle of any kind, they are conducted from a jig that simulates the vehicle or even a plain jig. Proof of firing and safety do NOT require the weapon to be sited in a vehicle. The question of target effect is therefor valid.
 
50mm may be on the way, from the USA. The US Army has revived the 1980s German idea of necking the 35 x 228 Oerlikon case up to 50mm, so a 35mm Bushmaster III could be adapted to 50mm by changing the barrel, and a few other bits and pieces. See the pic below showing the "Super 50" next to the current 25mm NATO.

Super 50.jpg

The 40CTWS cannot provide a calibre increase in the same way. It would be necessary to scale up the ammo and scale up the gun to match - basically, all new.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What would be the intended target for such precision ammo?
Click to expand...
I would guess air-defence like the Starstreak.
The stated effective range of 4km would not be believable for an anti-armour role. For armour-piercing the range bottleneck is velocity and not precision. And a normal APFSDS round should be much faster than this 25mm projectile.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom